Page 1 of 3
Torture is allowed on heavy criminals/terrorists ?
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:11 am
by heroo
Don't know if there has been a topic like this before, but yesterday i saw a documentary about the U.S using torture methods on heavy criminals/terrorists.
So my question to you guys is: Do you think it is allowed to use torture methods on heavy criminals/terrorists to get information ?
DISCUESS !
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:16 am
by Luoma
Hmm torture them for what purpose? information?
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:18 am
by iGod
Nope torture should never be allowed.. its not allowed in wars, why should it be allowed for criminals/terrorists?
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:19 am
by TOloseGT
no, torture should not be used one anybody.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:22 am
by heroo
Luoma wrote:Hmm torture them for what purpose? information?
yes
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:25 am
by Ashikiheyun
No torture should never be used. The US has signed international treaties saying we won't, we do but our government won't admit it. We changed the definition so it only applies if there is organ failure or death. It's a sad and horrible thing that our government does it and won't admit it.
But as to the original question, NO, I don't think torture should ever be used, it is a horrible thing.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:25 am
by Luoma
heroo wrote:Luoma wrote:Hmm torture them for what purpose? information?
yes
mmm not sure, if there is no other way and it is needed to like save alot of innocent people then maby =/
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:29 am
by heroo
imagine:
you arrested a terrorist who placed a bomb in the middle of Times Square. He knows where the bomb is but he won't tell you. The bomb will explode within 24 hours, and when it does, thousands of innocent people will die.
What would you do ? I think i would use torture methods.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:30 am
by Ashikiheyun
heroo wrote:imagine:
you arrested a terrorist who placed a bomb in the middle of Times Square. He knows where the bomb is but he won't tell you. The bomb will explode within 24 hours, and when it does, thousands of innocent people will die.
What would you do ? I think i would use torture methods.
In extreme cases like that, yes. But if you use examples like that you can win in most arguments.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
by heroo
Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:imagine:
you arrested a terrorist who placed a bomb in the middle of Times Square. He knows where the bomb is but he won't tell you. The bomb will explode within 24 hours, and when it does, thousands of innocent people will die.
What would you do ? I think i would use torture methods.
In extreme cases like that, yes. But if you use examples like that you can win in most arguments.
wouldn't you use torture methods just to safe
one innocent life ?
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:43 am
by Ashikiheyun
heroo wrote:Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:imagine:
you arrested a terrorist who placed a bomb in the middle of Times Square. He knows where the bomb is but he won't tell you. The bomb will explode within 24 hours, and when it does, thousands of innocent people will die.
What would you do ? I think i would use torture methods.
In extreme cases like that, yes. But if you use examples like that you can win in most arguments.
wouldn't you use torture methods just to safe
one innocent life ?
Would the torture kill the other person?
The thing I'm trying to say is that the shit the US does is like hooking wires up to prisoners, standing them up against a board and saying if they moved they would be electrocuted and leave them there for hours while the wires are hook up to nothing.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:51 am
by heroo
Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:imagine:
you arrested a terrorist who placed a bomb in the middle of Times Square. He knows where the bomb is but he won't tell you. The bomb will explode within 24 hours, and when it does, thousands of innocent people will die.
What would you do ? I think i would use torture methods.
In extreme cases like that, yes. But if you use examples like that you can win in most arguments.
wouldn't you use torture methods just to safe
one innocent life ?
Would the torture kill the other
person?
The thing I'm trying to say is that the shit the US does is like hooking wires up to prisoners, standing them up against a board and saying if they moved they would be electrocuted and leave them there for hours while the wires are hook up to nothing.
interesting you call people like those '' persons ''. If they are guilty indeed, I'd rather call them '' monsters ''
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:38 am
by RuYi
heroo wrote:Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:imagine:
you arrested a terrorist who placed a bomb in the middle of Times Square. He knows where the bomb is but he won't tell you. The bomb will explode within 24 hours, and when it does, thousands of innocent people will die.
What would you do ? I think i would use torture methods.
In extreme cases like that, yes. But if you use examples like that you can win in most arguments.
wouldn't you use torture methods just to safe
one innocent life ?
Would the torture kill the other
person?
The thing I'm trying to say is that the shit the US does is like hooking wires up to prisoners, standing them up against a board and saying if they moved they would be electrocuted and leave them there for hours while the wires are hook up to nothing.
interesting you call people like those '' persons ''. If they are guilty indeed, I'd rather call them '' monsters ''
That's a matter of opinion.
What is a terrorist to one, is a fighter for freedom to another.
/Ontopic
Torture is a wrong thing to do. And those methods shouldn't be used by anyone, not -in this situation- the USA, nor the terrorists.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:44 am
by TwelveEleven
it's too inhuman to me. Torture should NEVER be used..
But here's another question, do you think Psychological torture should be allowed?
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:47 am
by Ashikiheyun
TwelveEleven wrote:it's too inhuman to me. Torture should NEVER be used..
But here's another question, do you think Psychological torture should be allowed?
No that can be worse in some cases.
-Going to bed now, will check when I wake up if you have a counter argument.-
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:50 am
by Crumpets
Why torture people? Surely the 'torturer' should be punished too :>
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:53 am
by TwelveEleven
Ashikiheyun wrote:TwelveEleven wrote:it's too inhuman to me. Torture should NEVER be used..
But here's another question, do you think Psychological torture should be allowed?
No that can be worse in some cases.
-Going to bed now, will check when I wake up if you have a counter argument.-
I got the same opinion as you my friend, that's why I asked others. To see if they thought that it's suited in certain situations as well as physical torture..
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:38 pm
by Rakion
NO TORTURE... SEND THEM IN THE ARMY LIKE THE IN THE GAME STARCRAFT WHERE ALL MARINES ARE CRIMINALS
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:50 pm
by Jstar1
I would torture them. Ther extremists
if those terrorists who killed 3000 americans on 9/11 were alive and captured don't you think the families of the victims would want them to suffer? I would
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:47 pm
by Yasakira
Jstar1 wrote:I would torture them. Ther extremists
if those terrorists who killed 3000 americans on 9/11 were alive and captured don't you think the families of the victims would want them to suffer? I would
Youre right. We should kill them all. In fact, why do we even need prisons. If someone goes to jail, lets just kill them off. Im sure if someone got murdered, their family would want the murderer to suffer. So just kill them. That would solve all the worlds problems wouldnt it?
/sarcasm
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:51 pm
by dom
I am going to get straight to the point. Something is terribly wrong with media coverage of the war in Iraq. The media hysteria about Iraq and the prisoners reached a crescendo last Friday when another network breathlessly disclosed that American guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad had stomped on the toes of suspected Iraqi terrorists to make them more likely to talk about murders of Americans and innocent Iraqis in Iraq.
This toe stomping was treated as a stunning revelation of American brutality. It was added to the torrent of hysteria about photos of nude Iraqis piling on each other and a nude Iraqi being led by a woman soldier with a leash. All of this --according to the media and some in Congress --is supposed to show that America is itself a terrorist nation and that we are really no different from the terrorists.
This is dangerous nonsense.
Here is what is important. This conflict started because a group of Islamic fundamentalist mass murderers killed three thousand totally innocent civilians on September 11, 2001. We did nothing to provoke it except in the terrorists' crazy brains. We had to fight back. That's why we went into Afghanistan and used harsh methods to get answers out of captured Al Qaeda there. To prevent more 9/11's.
Does the media think you just plunk down your card on a silver tray and the terrorists talk? Do they think we get useful information out of hardened terrorists by polite questioning? What do the media think we did in Vietnam? What do they think the Israelis do to find out about terrorism? What do they think the British did in Northern Ireland? Fighting terrorists is a brutal business.
Now, we're in Iraq. Once we're there, we have to protect innocent life from terrorists. That means interrogating prisoners whom we think are terrorists. Sometimes harshly. But we are the good guys. We saved Iraq from a dictator a billion times worse than anything we do there. The people who murder our soldiers and civilians and mutilate them just because the Americans are trying to help rebuild Iraq--those killers are the bad guys.
The media plays up endlessly fraternity boy mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Yes, it does not look good. And some of it is genuinely bad. The media goes wild about those things. But where is the fuller story? What about the thousands of Iraqis who were tortured to death, who had their eyes cut out, who were surgically mutilated, who were raped, starved, had gasoline poured down their throats and then were set on fire by the Saddam Hussein regime at the same prison? Why don't we ever hear about them? What about the Americans –– military and civilian––who have taken Iraqis mutilated by Saddam and sent them to America for prosthesis for free? Why don't we hear about them on TV?
Why don't we hear more about the families of the four U.S. contractors who were murdered and their bodies mutilated in Falluja by terrorists ? They have been totally forgotten.
Let me ask the media and the Congress a question: might it have been worth stomping on a terrorist's fingers and toes and depriving him of sleep to find out who murdered those four men in Falluja. And making sure they didn't do it again?
Media, Congress, get it straight: The US is the main repository of decency on this earth. And we are a powerful nation. The Al Qaeda can never defeat us if we are united. But we can defeat ourselves if we begin to think we are the enemy and lose our confidence in our cause.
Let's be clear: there is no moral equivalency between us and the terrorists. We're the good guys, and if we lose because we didn't play hard enough, it's the end of everything good in our world.
http://www.benstein.com/cbs.html
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:55 pm
by xibeleli
depends on what the criminal/terroist did
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:00 pm
by rek
In some situations, yes. But on the whole.. no. Torturing someone is inhuman.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:18 pm
by phulshof
Just 2 things:
1. Geneva Convention
We all agreed to not use torture. This was done to prevent torture both ways. If the US thinks it should be free to use torture, do not be surprised if the next enemy you fight will use the same tactics.
2. Torture does not work
It is a well known fact that torture rarely provides reliable information. You will spend more time trying to figure out if the information you got is reliable than you would figuring out the answer in the first place.
Having said that: How long do you need to keep prisoners in Guantanamo before you finally charge them with something. After 5 years, any information these people might have had (most were probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time) is absolutely worthless anyway. If you have proof that they committed crimes: bring them before a judge already! Otherwise, let them go, and pay them for holding them innocently in a jail for so long.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:22 pm
by BlackFox
Oh no even if the are heavy criminals/terrorists But torture no they be like them and yes is not humant to do it. well is better to give them a truth shot whatever is called ../
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:39 pm
by StuckUP
heroo wrote:Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:imagine:
you arrested a terrorist who placed a bomb in the middle of Times Square. He knows where the bomb is but he won't tell you. The bomb will explode within 24 hours, and when it does, thousands of innocent people will die.
What would you do ? I think i would use torture methods.
In extreme cases like that, yes. But if you use examples like that you can win in most arguments.
wouldn't you use torture methods just to safe
one innocent life ?
Would the torture kill the other
person?
The thing I'm trying to say is that the shit the US does is like hooking wires up to prisoners, standing them up against a board and saying if they moved they would be electrocuted and leave them there for hours while the wires are hook up to nothing.
interesting you call people like those '' persons ''. If they are guilty indeed, I'd rather call them '' monsters ''
It's a matter of how you look at it. And no I don't torture should be used but this torture compared to the torture used in the 1800 and middle ages will make the torture in this era seem like kiddy play.
@phulshof
I agree with you
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:12 pm
by Stormprobe
Well. they SAY that they dont torture. But how do you know taht they dont have secret bases in desert...
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:23 pm
by XCaosX
the right thing to do is kill them,a person who kill someone else dont deserve to live.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:51 pm
by heroo
RuYi wrote:heroo wrote:Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:Ashikiheyun wrote:heroo wrote:imagine:
you arrested a terrorist who placed a bomb in the middle of Times Square. He knows where the bomb is but he won't tell you. The bomb will explode within 24 hours, and when it does, thousands of innocent people will die.
What would you do ? I think i would use torture methods.
In extreme cases like that, yes. But if you use examples like that you can win in most arguments.
wouldn't you use torture methods just to safe
one innocent life ?
Would the torture kill the other
person?
The thing I'm trying to say is that the shit the US does is like hooking wires up to prisoners, standing them up against a board and saying if they moved they would be electrocuted and leave them there for hours while the wires are hook up to nothing.
interesting you call people like those '' persons ''. If they are guilty indeed, I'd rather call them '' monsters ''
That's a matter of opinion.
What is a terrorist to one, is a fighter for freedom to another.
/Ontopic
Torture is a wrong thing to do. And those methods shouldn't be used by anyone, not -in this situation- the USA, nor the terrorists.
how can someone that kills innocent people be a freedom fighter ? A freedom fighter is someone who fights against a force that is occupieng his country.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:59 pm
by RuYi
heroo wrote:how can someone that kills innocent people be a freedom fighter ? A freedom fighter is someone who fights against a force that is occupieng his country.
That's what I mean. Matter of opinion.
What you just stated, is your opinion.
But there's always someone with another.
What you consider 'good' or 'the right thing', might be completely wrong in the eyes of another.
That goes for everything. There's no evil without any good.
Nothing excist without the complete opposite.
And what looks right in the eyes of one, might be wrong in the eyes of another.
Go back to the scene of the terrorist, and the soldier. Keep it simple.
The soldier fights against the terrorist.
The terrorist fights against the soldier.
Why?
Does the soldier fights because he wants to be evil?
Does the terrorist fights for what he thinks is the bad thing?
They both fight for what they think is right.